ML15126A283

LRA - Draft SAMA Response

ML15126A283
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/04/2015
From:	- No Known Affiliation
To:	Division of License Renewal
References
Download: ML15126A283 (27)

Text

Fermi2LRANPEm Resource From: Randall D Westmoreland [westmorelandr@dteenergy.com]

Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 3:46 PM To: Keegan, Elaine Cc: Lynne S Goodman; Kevin P Lynn

Subject:

Draft SAMA Response Attachments: draft NRC-15-0045 (SAMA Set 3) 05-04-15.pdf

Elaine, Please find the attached draft SAMA response that we discussed on our call today.

Regards, Randall Westmoreland DTE Electric Company Major Enterprise Projects Technical Expert Fermi Office: 734-586-1445 CARING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE NATURE OF OUR JOB.

1

Hearing Identifier: Fermi2_LR_NonPublic Email Number: 287 Mail Envelope Properties (OF61AD4AB5.DF5751F2-ON85257E3B.006C9A9D-85257E3B.006C9ACB)

Subject:

Draft SAMA Response Sent Date: 5/4/2015 3:46:15 PM Received Date: 5/4/2015 3:46:18 PM From: Randall D Westmoreland Created By: westmorelandr@dteenergy.com Recipients:

"Lynne S Goodman" <goodmanl@dteenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Kevin P Lynn" <lynnk@dteenergy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Keegan, Elaine" <Elaine.Keegan@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None Post Office: dteenergy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 380 5/4/2015 3:46:18 PM draft NRC-15-0045 (SAMA Set 3) 05-04-15.pdf 239108 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

Vito A. Kaminskas Site Vice President DTE Energy Company 6400 N. Dixie Highway, Newport, MI 48166 Tel: 734.586.6515 Fax: 734.586.4172 Email: kaminskasv@dteenergy.com 10 CFR 54 May XX, 2015 NRC-15-0045 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington D C 20555-0001

References:

1) Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 1

NRC License No. NPF-43 PF-43 43 T AF

2) DTE Electric Company Letter to NRC, Application, for Additional Information NR Fermi

, NRC-14-0028, dated Ap

3) DTE Electric Company Informatio for the NRC-15-0013, dated Jan January Fer 2 License Renewal April 24, 2014 (ML14121A554)

NRC, Response to NRC Request mpany Letter to NR th Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, Janua 9, 2015 (ML15009A358)

R 4) DTE Electric Compan for Addit Fermi 2 Lic Company Letter to NRC, Response to NRC Request Information for the Environmental Review of the Additional Info License Renewal Application - Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 2, NRC-15-0023, dated March 5, 2015 (ML15064A099)

(ML15064 ML1 D

Subject:

5) NRC Letter, Request for Additional Information for the Environmental E Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

- Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, dated April 9, 2015 (ML151509A945)

Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the Environmental Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application -

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 In Reference 2, DTE Electric Company (DTE) submitted the License Renewal Application (LRA) for Fermi 2. In References 3 and 4, DTE responded to NRC staff requests for additional information (RAIs) regarding the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) of the Fermi 2 LRA. The NRC staff issued a follow-up RAI

USNRC NRC-15-0045 Page 2 letter on SAMA in Reference 5. Enclosure 1 to this letter provides the DTE response to the RAI letter in Reference 5. provides a CD containing the electronic input and output files requested in Question 3 of Reference 5. DTE has verified with the applicable vendor that the enclosed input and output files do not contain any information considered proprietary.

The file format and names on the enclosed CD do not comply with the requirements for electronic submission to the NRC, but were requested by the NRC staff in the native format required by the associated software.

No new commitments are being made in this submittal.

tal.

Should you have any questions or require additional tional information, please pl contact co Lynne Goodman at 734-586-1205.

T I declare under penalty of perjury that the he foregoing is true t and correct.

corr AF Executed on May XX, 2015 Execut Vito A.

Sit A Kaminskas Site Vice President Nuclear Generation R

Enclosures:

sures: Response to NRC Request for Additional Information for the

1) DTE Re Environme Environmental

2) CD Containing Conta Review of the Fermi 2 License Renewal Application

- Severe Accident Ac Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Input and Output Files Requested by Severe D

cc: NRCC Project M NRC License Accident Mitigation Alternatives Set 3 Question 3 Acc Accide Manager w/o Enclosure 2 icen Renewal Project Manager w/o Enclosure 2 NRC License Renewal Environmental Project Manager NRC Resident Office w/o Enclosure 2 Reactor Projects Chief, Branch 5, Region III w/o Enclosure 2 Regional Administrator, Region III w/o Enclosure 2 Michigan Public Service Commission, Regulated Energy Division (kindschl@michigan.gov) w/o Enclosure 2

USNRC NRC-15-0045 Page 3 bcc: w/o Enclosure 2 M. S. Caragher G. H. Cerullo J. P. Christinidis W. A. Colonnello P. Fessler J. K. Ford L. S. Goodman A. I. Hassoun K. J. Hlavaty V. A. Kaminskas M. J. Koenemann M. A. Lake K. P. Lynn L. J. Peterson M. A. Philippon T

Michigan gan AF C. R. Robinson J. M. Thorson Electronic Licensing Library (ELL)

Information (ELL (200 T on Management (140 NOCNOC) w/

TAC) w/o Enclosure 2 w Enclosure 2 Environmental Quality n Department of Environme R Resource esourcee Management Division - Radiological Protection Section (yalek@michigan.gov)

(yalek@michigan w/o Enclosure NRR Chron File w/o Enclosure E

Enclo NSRG Administrator (210 E

2 2

(21 NOC) w/o Enclosure 2 (2

D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 T

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 50 AF DTE Response for the Environmental Operating g License No. NPF-4 se to NRC Request for A ntal Review of the Fermi re Accident Mitigation Severe NPF-43 Additional Information Ferm 2 License Renewal Application -

Mitigati Alternatives Set 3 R

D to NRC-15-0045 Page 1 Question 1 [March 5, 2015, RAI 3 Response (relating to January 9, 2015 response to RAI 2g.iii)]

a) In Table 3-5 (p. 14) the cost of SAMA 152 is erroneously given as $1,000,000. The cost should be $100,000 (as noted in ER Table D.2-1). Provide a refined analysis similar to those in Table 3-6.

b) The assessment of the 3.14E-09/year undercounting of Class IIA accident sequences in the ER cost/benefit analysis discussed in RAI 2 will impact the adjusted cost benefits in the ed co response to RAI 3. Account for this undercounting in assessing g the impact i of the inclusion of Class IIA sequences in the same release category as the Class ass IV sequences.

seq

Response

a) In Table 3-5 of the DTE RAI response dated March rch 5, 2015 (NRC-15-0023), the t implementation cost of SAMA 152 was incorrectly ctly identified as rectly a $1,000,000.

$1,000,000 The correct value is $100,000 (as listed in ER Table D.2-1).

2-1). SAMA AMA 152 has been ad added to the SAMA candidates receiving a refined analysis, similar to that performed perfo Table 3-6 of in T NRC-15-0023, provided in the response nsee to Question 1(b) below (see(s Table 2-2).

b) Questions 1(a) and 1(b) are bothh addressed ed in this response (i.e.,

( the implementation cost of SAMA 152 is corrected (responseponse to Question 1(a))

1(a in the revised cost-benefit analysis performed in this responsee to Question 1(b)).

In NRC-15-0023, DTE E responded to RAI 2 which related to the undercounting of the Class IIA frequency andnd performed evaluations conservatively assuming that all the rmed sensitivity evalu undercounted frequency (3.14E-0 (3.14E-09/yr) was associated with the H/E release category. In NRC-15-0023, responded to RAI 3 addressing combining Class IIA 023, DTE separately resp responde sequenceses with Class IV sequences in the H/E release category. The potential impact of includingg Class IIA sequences sequence in the th H/E release category was evaluated using conservative consequence (i.e uusing bounding offsite dose and economic cost values). The ce assumptions (i.e.,

DTE responsee to RAI 3 in N NRC-15-0023 did not include consideration of the additional NR 3.14E-09/yr frequency uency addressed add in RAI 2 in NRC-15-0023. This present RAI response considers the potential tial impact of the additional frequency discussed in RAI 2 (from NRC-15-0023) using the general methodology of RAI 3 (also from NRC-15-0023).

To address the additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency identified in Question 1(b), Table 3-6 of the DTE RAI responses in NRC-15-0023, is revised to include an additional frequency of 3.14E-09/yr. Additionally, the scope of SAMAs considered in Table 3-6 of NRC-15-0023 is expanded to include a refined analysis for all the SAMA candidates that were listed in Table 3-5 of that same RAI response (i.e., SAMA candidates that may have an impact on Class IIA sequences). This expanded list of SAMAs includes SAMA 152, thereby addressing Question 1(a).

to NRC-15-0045 Page 2 The additional 3.14E-09/yr frequency associated with the release undercount is added to the original Class IIA H/E release frequency of 5.32E-08/yr, provided in Table 3-2 of NRC-15-0023, RAI 3. The addition of this 3.14E-09/yr frequency to the Class IIA H/E release category is conservative since it would be expected that this additional frequency would be distributed among various release categories that contain Class IIA sequences. The new Class IIA H/E frequency is 5.32E-08/yr + 3.14E-09/yr = 5.63E-08/yr, as provided in Table 2-1 below, which represents an update of Table 3-2 from the previous RAI response.

For each of these relevant SAMAs (i.e., from Table 3-5 of NRC-15-0023), 5-002 the general 5-0023 methodology discussed in RAI 3 and presented in Table 3-2 and Tab 3-6 oof NRC-15-0023 nd Table was maintained and the Class IIA H/E frequency was updated ed to account acco the 3.14E-09/yr for th additional frequency. Table 2-2 of this response presents the he updated version ve Table 3-6, of T with the following aspects noted:

1. The general methodology of Table 2-2 calculates T

except 78 and 123 (which are discussed separately based on a detailed cutset summation. The overall es the H/E Class IIA freque Other frequency that is reduced due to the SAMA candidate. For all SA frequency and H/E arately below), this reduction eparately SAMA candidates reductio in frequency is perce reduction of the Class IIA H/E erall percent Percent Reduction.

AF release category is calculated and included

2. In order to calculate the Adjusted the fraction of Class IIA frequency cluded as the third ccolumn of Table 2-2, Class IIA ted Cost equency reduction duction for this SAMA SAMA (column 10 of Table 2-2) ,

ost Benefit for each SAM SAM candidate is applied to the SA new (higher) Class IIA H/E release category ffrequency which includes the 3.14E-09/yr additional frequency identified in the RAI. This assumes reduction for the additional release category.

frequency dditional 3.14E-09/yr frequen frequ as

y. This assumption is judged reasonable.

r the SAMA Class IIA frequency is the same as the base Class IIA H/E The H/E Other release R

category frequency

3. The general Adjusted Adjusted quency and contribution to the Adjusted Cost Benefit remains the same.

al methodology highighlighted in Table 2-2 is used to calculate the new (higher) comparison to the SAMA Implementation Cost. The higher ed Cost Benefit for compariso comp usted Cost Benefit is due to the Benefit efit portion remains th increase in the Offsite Benefit portion. The Onsite unchanged.

unchan u Onsite Benefit is calculated based on Level 1 CDF D rather than han Level 2 release ccategory frequency. The 3.14E-9/yr undercounting is due to postulated undercounting of Level 2 frequency not Level 1 CDF.

4. An uncertainty ty factor oof 2.5 is applied to the Adjusted Cost Benefit to account for 95%

CDF uncertaintyy (column (c 11 of Table 2-2).

For the original SAMA analysis, SAMA 78 (Flooding of the DW head seal) was assumed to eliminate all Class II or Class IV accident sequences with large drywell failures. This SAMA was the subject of an RAI (i.e., RAI 6.f). DTE provided a revised benefit and implementation cost estimate in the response to RAI 6.f, dated January 9, 2015 (NRC-15-0013). Table 2-2 incorporates the revised values associated with the RAI 6.f response for SAMA 78. For this present analysis, SAMA 78 is assumed to eliminate all the H/E Class IIA frequency (i.e., Class IIA Percent Reduction of 100%).

For the original SAMA analysis, SAMA 123 (Filtered Containment Vent) was assumed to to NRC-15-0045 Page 3 decrease the concentration of all radionuclides (excluding noble gases) by 50% (i.e., there was no change in core damage frequency or release category frequency calculated). For this present analysis, SAMA 123 is conservatively assumed to eliminate all the H/E Class IIA frequency (i.e., Class IIA Percent Reduction of 100%). This approach bounds the 50%

radionuclide concentration reduction.

Review of Table 2-2 Adjusted Cost Benefits and Implementation Costs indicates that these SAMA candidates have significant margin to being potentially cost beneficial. These SAMA candidates remain not cost beneficial even if the 95% uncertainty sensiti sensitivity factor (2.5) is sensi included in the cost benefit calculation.

T AF R

D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 4 Table 2-1 FERMI 2 SAMA DOSE RISK AND COST RISK WITH SEPARATE CLASS ASS II H/E RELEASE CATEGORY IIA H Offsite ffsite Population Pop Offsite Economic Characteristics of Release Mode Population Dose Economic Dose Risk Cost Risk Cost C

Release Category yr-1 person-rem $ perso person-rem/yr $/yr H/E-BOC 5.93E-08 2.18E+07 07 3.03E+10 3.03 1.29E+00 1.80E+03 Class IIA 5.63E-08 2.18E+07 8E+07 3.03E+10 3 1.23E+00 1.71E+03 H/E H/I H/L Other 2.60E-07 7.20E-08 2.46E-10 8.10E+06 9.52E+06 52E+06 8.98E+06 8E+06 2.80 2.80E+10 5.26E+

5.26E+10

.26E 1.6 1.67E+10 T 2.11E+00 6.86E-01 2.21E-03 7.28E+03 3.79E+03 4.11E+00 M/E 6.17E-08 2.48E+06 E+06 8.39E+09 1.53E-01 5.18E+02 M/I L/E 3.71E-08 4.36E-08 6E-08 08 2.76E+06

+06 2.26E+05 05 F

6.10E+09 2.26E+07 1.03E-01 9.85E-03 2.27E+02 9.85E-01 L/I 5.46E-08 6E-08 2.14E+06 8.25E+09 1.17E-01 4.51E+02 LL/E 5.02E-10 1.31E+04 1.31E+ 3.81E+05 6.57E-06 1.91E-04 LL/I Cl 7.75E-08 7.75E-0 7.83E-07 E-07 1.2 1.29E+05 6.46E+01 A 4.05E+06 1.96E+00 1.00E-02 5.06E-05 3.14E-01 1.54E-06 Totals R 5.71E+00 1.58E+04 D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 5 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON CLASS C IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Class IIA Addition- Base Case Adjusted Adjus Addition- Case Ca Uncertain-Class IIA Fre- al Offsite Benefit Be Benefit Adj Adjusted al Offsite Benefit Benefi ty Factor Implemen-SAMA Percent quency Economic Portion n Portion Cost Description Dose Portion ortion Applied to tation Cost

1. Red- Red- Cost fromm from om Benefit Benefit from Adj. Cost ($)(10) uction(1) uction Benefit Offsite ffsite Offsit Offsite ($)(8)

($)(3) Onsite Onsit Benefit (per/yr)(2) ($)(4) ($))(5) ($ (6)

($)

($)(7)

($ ($)(9)

Use 21 firewater system as a backup 58.34% 3.29E-08 106,618 8,950 241,689 1,689 357,257 357 35 T

15,257 372,514 931,285 2,000,000 source for diesel cooling Training for F

offsite 24 power 0.00% 0.00E+00 0 0 0 2,839 2,839 3,429 6,268 15,670 50,000 recovery after SBO Change A

procedures to allow 50 cross connect of motor 2.88% 1.62E-09 9 5,258 R 441 11,967 17,667 1,187 18,854 47,134 50,000 cooling for RHRSW pumps D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 6 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON N CLASS CLA IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Class IIA Addition- Base Case Adjusted justed Addition- Case Uncertain-Class IIA Fre- al Offsite Benefit Benef Benefit Adjusted A

al Offsite Benefit Ben ty Factor Implemen-SAMA Percent quency Economic Portion Po Portion Cost C

Description Dose Portio Portion Applied to tation Cost

1. Red- Red- Cost from from Benefit B

Benefit from om Adj. Cost ($)(10) uction(1) uction Benefit Offsite ite Offsite s ($)(8)

($)(3) Onsitee Benefit (per/yr)(2) ($)(4) ($)

$)(5) ($)(6)

($)(7) ($)(9)

Enhance procedural 54 guidance for use of cross-tied 0.02% 1.07E-11 35 3 2,239 239 2,276 22,2 T

998 3,275 8,186 50,000 component cooling or service water pumps F

Enhance procedure to 67 trip unneeded RHR or CS 0.00% 0.00E+00 00E+0 00E+00 0 0 A

717 717 468 1,185 2,963 50,000 pumps on loss of room 78 ventilation Enable flooding of 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 18 R

15,341 97,454 295,559 0 295,559 738,897 1,000,000 drywell head seal D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 7 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON N CLASS CLA IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Class IIA Addition- Base Case Adjusted justed Addition- Case Uncertain-Class IIA Fre- al Offsite Benefit Benef Benefit Adjusted A

al Offsite Benefit Ben ty Factor Implemen-SAMA Percent quency Economic Portion Po Portion Cost C

Description Dose Portio Portion Applied to tation Cost

1. Red- Red- Cost from from Benefit B

Benefit from om Adj. Cost ($)(10) uction(1) uction Benefit Offsite ite Offsite s ($)(8)

($)(3) Onsitee Benefit (per/yr)(2) ($)(4) ($)

$)(5) ($)(6)

($)(7) ($)(9)

Install an ATWS sized 123 filtered containment vent to 100.00% 5.63E-08 182,763 15,341 5,3411 1,102,769 1,300,874 1,300,87 300,8 T0 1,300,874 3,252,185 40,000,000 remove decay heat Increase training and F

operating experience 145 11.94% 6.73E-09 09 9 21,828 1,832 275,160 298,820 34,605 333,425 833,562 1,000,000 feedback to improve operator A

response Procedur-152 alize all potential 4-kV AC bus 6.01% 3.39E-09 10,991 10,9 R 923 23,149 35,063 2,189 37,251 93,128 100,000 cross-tie actions D

Enclosure 1 to NRC-15-0045 Page 8 Table 2-2 FERMI 2 SAMA CANDIDATES WITH POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON N CLASS CLA IIA SEQUENCES Base 2.5 Class IIA Addition- Base Case Adjusted justed Addition- Case Uncertain-Class IIA Fre- al Offsite Benefit Benef Benefit Adjusted A

al Offsite Benefit Ben ty Factor Implemen-SAMA Percent quency Economic Portion Po Portion Cost C

Description Dose Portio Portion Applied to tation Cost

1. Red- Red- Cost from from Benefit B

Benefit from om Adj. Cost ($)(10) uction(1) uction Benefit Offsite ite Offsite s ($)(8)

($)(3) Onsitee Benefit (per/yr)(2) ($)(4) ($)

$)(5) ($)(6)

($)(7) ($)(9)

Provide an alternate 177 means of supplying the 15.84% 8.92E-09 28,949 2,430 91,376 122,755 122,75 22,75 T

8,084 130,839 327,098 489,300 instrument air header Provide ability to F

maintain 194 suppression 4.74% 2.67E-09 8,660 660 727 24,515 33,903 4,359 38,261 95,653 100,000 pool temperature lower A

Notes to Table 2-2:

1. Class IIA Percent Reduction on calculated based base oon detailed cutset summation, except for SAMAs 78 and 123 where 100% H/E Class IIA reduction is assumed.

ed.

R Reduction times the H/E Class IIA release frequency of 5.63E-08/yr (which includes the

2. Calculated as Class IIA Percent Reductio 3.14E-09/yr additional frequency).

3. These values are derived by taking the difference between the H/E Class IIA release category population dose (2.18E+07 rem, using the BOC MACCS2 results) and the Other H/E release category population dose (8.10E+06 rem) to calculate the D

additional benefit (1.37E+07 rem) to the population dose reduction and applying a dose benefit of $2000 /person-rem and the to NRC-15-0045 Page 9 Class IIA frequency reduction listed in Column 4. These values are multiplied by the external hazards factor (11) and the 7%

discount rate factor (10.76).

4. These values are derived by taking the difference between the H/E Class IIA release category economic cost ($3.03E+10) and lease cate the Other H/E release category offsite economic cost ($2.80E+10) to calculate ulate the th additional additio benefit ($2.30E+09) to the offsite economic costs assuming the Class IIA frequency reduction listed in Column 4. 4 These values v are multiplied by the external hazards factor (11) and the 7% discount rate factor (10.76).

5. Values from Table 3-3 of the March 5, 2015 DTE RAI 3 response, except for SAMA 78 where wh theth value has been updated based on the January 9, 2015 DTE RAI 6.f response.

6. Values from summation of Columns 5, 6, and 7.

7. Values from Table 3-3 of the March 5, 2015 DTE RAI 3 response.

sponse.

onse. The SAMA SAM 78 value is unchanged.

8. Values from summation of Columns 8 and 9.

9. Values from Column 10 times the 2.5 uncertainty factor.

10. From SAMA ER Table D.2-1, except for SAMA 788 where RAI 6.f response.

tor.

or.

here the value has been updated F up u

T based on the January 9, 2015 DTE A

R D

to NRC-15-0045 Page 10 Question 2 [March 5, 2015, RAI 5 (relating to January 9, 2015 response to RAI 5.a.ii, 5.a.vi, 5.a.vii, 6.h and 7.a)]

The primary purpose of the RAI was to determine how the cost-benefit calculations performed in response to the original RAIs were performed with respect to the external events multiplier. The response for each of the RAI subsections included the statement that the analysis was performed using the same methodology as described in the ER. For all but one (6.h) it was also stated that The same external event multiplier used in the ER was applied to this evaluation. Confirm that the external event multiplier of 11 was used for all the cited analyses including 6.h?

yses iin

Response

The external event multiplier of 11 was used for all of the analyses cited in the response respons to RAI 5 T

(DTE letter NRC-15-0023, dated March 5, 2015), including uding RAI 6.h (DTE letter N dated January 9, 2015). Each of the SAMA analysess associated with the listed RAIs reviewed and confirmed to have used the externall event vent multiplier of 11.

NRC-15-0013, NR RA were AF R

D to NRC-15-0045 Page 11 Question 3 Specify the U.S. permanent population, Canadian permanent population, and total transient population that sum to the total estimated population of 6,055,678 reported in Table D.1-22 of the environmental report. Provide tables showing the spatial distribution of these three population components. Justify that the total population and its spatial distribution modeled in the SAMA analysis will not underestimate offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks, considering prevailing winds blowing from the west-southwest and the corresponding potential for atmospheric plume migration to the east-northeast. Explain how the population plain hho distribution and economic values were implemented in the SAMA analys account for the analysis to ac non-U.S. population and non-U.S. land areas. Provide WinMACCS CCS code inputs aand outputs that would allow confirmation that offsite population doses and offsite ffsite economic cost risks risk have not been underestimated due to these factors.

Response

a) Specify the U.S. permanent population, Canadian T

anadian permanent population, and total transient permanen population AF population that sum to the total estimated The US permanent population, reasonable agreement ed population of 6,055,678 of the environmental report. Providee tables population components.

on, Canadian permane permanent popu 6,0 ables showing the spatial reported rep in Table D.1-22 distribution of these three spatia di population, and total transient population totals for 20455 are shown in Tables 11, 2, and 3, respectively. The sums of those values are provided in Table 4. The total estimate estimated population p is 6,055,850 which is in 6,055,678 reported in Table D.1-22 of the entt (<0.003%) with the 6,055,6 R

Environmental Report which was calculated using of 1.2056. The SECPOP2000),

SECPOP2000).

he population multiplier P2000). The multip population growth between 2000 and differences differenc be Ca was used an 2045, u

u SECPOP2000 and a population multiplier to increase the population to account for 20 transient population (which is not included in P2000), and to account for Canadian between population (which is not included in Table D.1-22 of the Environmental Report (ER)

D and Table 4 is due to SECPOP SECPOP2000 not accounting for Canadian population (i.e. setting SECPOP2 population to 0). In order to account for the non-US population, the original SECPOP2000 results for each of the US sectors were increased by the above population multiplier and documented in Tablee D D.1-22 of the ER. Because of this method, the US sector populations in Table D.1-22 are higher than their corresponding values shown in Tables 1 and 4. Tables 1 through 4 provide the spatial distribution of the three population components and their total.

b) Justify that the total population and its spatial distribution modeled in the SAMA analysis will not underestimate offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks, considering prevailing winds blowing from the west-southwest and the corresponding potential for atmospheric plume migration to the east-northeast.

The Level 3 analysis was reanalyzed using the populations provided in Table 4 and compared to the ER SAMA analysis results. This is shown in Tables 5 and 6. The ER SAMA analysis to NRC-15-0045 Page 12 was performed with three years of meteorological data (2003, 2005, and 2007). The reanalysis was performed using the same three years of meteorological data. Note that a full year of meteorological data is used as input into WinMACCS, therefore the data considers prevailing wind direction based on actual meteorological data from the site.

The worst case ER SAMA analysis results (i.e. highest dose risk and highest economic risk) were for 2007, which is reported as the ER SAMA analysis results in Tables 5 and 6. As shown in Table 5, the dose risk and economic risk for 2007 using the population data from Table 4 is lower than when using population data shown in Table D.1-22 D.1-2 of the ER.

From Table 5, the reanalysis resulted in a slightly increased dose (less than 3%

3%) when using the 2003 and 2005 meteorological data, however the economicnomic significantly decreased omic risk sign (greater than 14%) in the reanalysis. This reduction inn economic risk resulted result in a reduced analyses, as shown in Table 6.

The ER SAMA analysis results provide bounding T

maximum averted cost risk and modified maximum averted cost risk than used unding maximum averted cos use in the SAMA cost risk and modified AF maximum averted cost risk (as shown inn Table 6) when compared using the population distribution as listed provided in Table D.1-22 of the ER.

are used in the ER SAMA analysis, are bounding.

c) Explain how the population com to the t reanalysis performed ted in Table 4 compared to tthe population distribution isted R. Thee ER SAMA analysis re results values shown in Table 6 herefore the values used in the ER SAMA analysis ysis, and therefore lation distribution and economic analysis to account for econom econ values were implemented in the SAMA or the non-U.S. population aand non-U.S. land areas.

R The populationn distribution and economic taken from SECPOP2000 which does multiplier e

doe no er of 1.2056 was developed uus population on within 50 miles of the plant p

values v implemented in the SAMA analysis are not include non-US population. A population using 2045 population based on permanent and transient site (including both US and Canadian permanent and D transient population) opulation) which was analysis are shown Therefore, the 1.2056 w determined in a separate analysis. The results of this hown in Table 44. The initial SECPOP2000 model determined the US population withinn 50 miles mile of the plant was 5,022,962, using no population multiplier.

56 ppopulation multiplier was used in order to increase the total population to match the total population listed in Table 4. This methodology increased the population output of SECPOP2000 to incorporate the Canadian population and transient population in areas where SECPOP2000 determined population to exist (i.e. within the US). Using the SECPOP2000 multiplier of 1.2056 gave a population result of 6,055,678 vs. 6,055,850, which is within reasonable agreement (< 0.003%).

An economic multiplier was also developed for 2013 land values within 50 miles of the plant site. The economic multiplier of 1.2964 was determined based on the consumer price index for 2013 vs 2002 as used in SECPOP2000. No other changes were made in the SAMA analysis. For the sensitivity results that are presented in Table 5 and Table 6, the economic to NRC-15-0045 Page 13 value for land in Canada was set to be equal to the maximum economic value of US land within 50 miles of the Fermi 2 site as determined by SECPOP2000 (including the 1.2964 multiplier) for conservatism.

d) Provide WinMACCS code inputs and outputs that would allow confirmation that offsite population doses and offsite economic cost risks have not been underestimated due to these factors.

Supporting WinMACCS input and output files are provided in Enclosure nclosu 2 for both the base nclosure case and the sensitivity analyses performed.

T AF R

D to NRC-15-0045 Page 14 Table 1 - Estimated 2045 US Permanent Population opul opula Distance (mi)

Direction (0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30)

(20 (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 167 287 201 200 15,392 92 124,306 409,52 409,529 5519,476 384,799 1,454,357 NNE 0 114 54 37 105 10,636 0,636 84,130 4,130 200,733 652,426 522,916 1,471,151 NE 0 239 155 0 0 47 6 0 74 0 521 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E

ESE 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 T 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7,913 40,313 48,234 SSE S

0 3

0 562 0

33 0

0 0

0 0

0 F 0 14 1,136 6,279 13,319 15,053 22,363 34,436 36,818 56,380 SSW 4 873 26 6 0 0 0 43 74,870 29,104 51,584 156,504 SW WSW 3

0 5

340 100 1000 10 962 280 0

2,160 287 28 85 2,069 2,0 321 A 1,158 35,520 7,432 12,505 12,091 7,495 278,172 16,296 10,557 154,320 15,015 32,531 34,754 12,887 35,576 481,347 97,100 94,584 W

WNW 4 59 135 128 12 325 4,706 6,694 21,772 22,818 18,667 75,308 NW NNW 2

2 126 165 763 4099 6665 631 R 1,167 382 5,986 4,742 15,093 26,447 147,248 217,495 170,808 170,467 76,272 164,114 418,130 584,854 TOTAL 23 2,845 3,114 4,109 4,654 85,619 288,824 1,384,095 1,803,324 1,398,681 4,975,288 D

to NRC-15-0045 Page 15 Table 2 - Estimated 2045 Canadian Permanentt Population Pop Po Distance(mi)

Direction (0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30)

(20 (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NNE 0 0 0 0 0 0 47,889 7,889 323,122 4,006 0 375,017 NE 0 0 0 0 0 527 32,8 32,879 123,232 123,2 102,482 158 259,278 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 100 11,163 225,307 17,201 21,675 75,356 E

ESE 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4,221 4,

0 T

20,210 2

44,702 287 4,404 0

73,537 289 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 SSE S

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

F 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

SSW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WSW W

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

A 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW NNW 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 R 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

TOTAL 0 0 0 D 0 0 537 96,152 491,873 168,746 26,237 783,545 to NRC-15-0045 Page 16 Table 3 - Estimated 2045 Transient Population ulati ulatio Distance(mi)

Direction (0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30)

(20 (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 9 15 10 10 799 6,450 21,25 21,251 226,956 19,968 75,468 NNE 0 6 3 2 5 552 6,559

,5 24,935 935 34,042 27,135 93,239 NE 0 12 8 0 0 25 1,416 1,4 5,305 5,30 4,416 7 11,189 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 0 481 1,089 740 933 3,243 E

ESE 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1182 0

T870 0

1,924 12 190 0

3,166 12 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 2,344 2,807 SSE S

0 0

0 29 0

2 0

0 0

0 0

0 F 0 1

66 365 774 875 1,300 2,002 2,140 3,274 SSW 0 45 1 0 0 0 2 4,353 1,692 2,999 9,092 SW 0 18 1 0 4 60 650 15,683 8,972 2,021 27,409 WSW W

0 0

5 5

50 15 112 115 2 107 10 17 A1,843 386 627 389 847 548 808 1,688 715 1,846 5,114 4,909 WNW 0 3 7 7 17 244 347 1,130 1,184 969 3,908 NW NNW 0

0 7

9 40 21 1

334 33 R 61 20 311 246 783 1,372 7,641 11,286 8,863 8,846 3,958 8,516 21,698 30,349 TOTAL 0 148 163 D 213 241 4,466 19,259 95,369 102,255 74,903 297,017 to NRC-15-0045 Page 17 Table 4 - Estimated 2045 Total Population tion Distance(mi)

Direction (0-1) (1-2) (2-3) (3-4) (4-5) (5-10) (10-20) (20-30)

(20 (30-40) (40-50) TOTAL N 0 176 302 211 210 16,1911 130,756 430,780 430,78 546,432 5 404,767 1,529,825 NNE 0 120 57 39 110 11,188 1,188 138,578 548,790 690,474 550,051 1,939,407 NE 0 251 163 0 0 599 34,3 34,301 128,537 128,5 106,972 165 270,988 ENE 0 0 0 0 0 100 11,644 226,396 17,941 22,608 78,599 E

ESE 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4,403 4,

0 T

21,080 2

46,626 299 4,594 0

76,703 301 SE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8,444 42,657 51,109 SSE S

0 3

0 591 0

35 0

0 0

0 0

0 F15 0 1,202 6,644 14,093 15,928 23,663 36,438 38,958 59,654 SSW 4 918 27 0 0 0 45 79,223 30,796 54,583 165,596 SW 3 358 11 0 89 1,218 13,155 293,855 163,292 36,775 508,756 WSW W

0 5

105 1055 11,012 295 2,272 302 30 2,176 2,1 338 A37,363 7,818 12,718 7,884 17,143 11,105 15,823 34,219 13,602 37,422 102,214 99,493 WNW 4 62 142 135 13 342 4,950 7,041 22,902 24,002 19,636 79,216 NW NNW 2

2 133 174 803 4300 6699 664 R 1,228 402 6,297 4,988 15,876 27,819 154,889 228,781 179,671 179,313 80,230 172,630 439,828 615,203 TOTAL 23 2,993 3,277 D 4,322 4,895 90,622 404,235 1,971,337 2,074,325 1,499,821 6,055,850 to NRC-15-0045 Page 18 Table 5 - Population Dose Risk and Economic mic Risk R

ER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity Sensitivity 2005 Met Data Sensitivi 2007 Met Data Sensitivity Release Population Economic Population Economic Population Popula Economic E Population Economic Category Dose Risk Risk Dose Risk Risk Dose Do Risk Risk R Dose Risk Risk (person-rem/yr) ($/yr) (person-rem/yr) ($/yr) (person-rem/yr)

(pe ($/yr)

($/yr (person-rem/yr) ($/yr)

H/E-BOC 1.29E+00 1.80E+03 1.33E+00 1.57E+03

+03 03 1.24E+00 24E+0 1.33E+03 1.33 1.26E+00 1.38E+03 H/E 2.54E+00 8.77E+03 2.55E+00 7.64E+03 64E+03 2.56 2.56E+00 7.01E+03 2.40E+00 7.23E+03 H/I 6.86E-01 3.79E+03 7.56E-01 3.08 3.08E+03 7.49 7.49E-01 2.43E+03 7.05E-01 2.65E+03 H/L M/E 2.21E-03 1.53E-01 4.11E+00 5.18E+02 2.22E-03 1.55E-01

-01 3.67E+00 4.23E+02 2.41E-0 2.41E-03 1.46E-01 1.46 T

3.35E+00 2.00E+02 2.33E-03 1.49E-01 3.54E+00 2.63E+02 M/I 1.03E-01 2.27E+02 9.68E-02 68E-02 1.85E+02 85E+0 9.87E-02 9.02E+01 9.76E-02 1.50E+02 L/E L/I 9.85E-03 1.17E-01 9.85E-01 4.51E+02 7.24E-03 7.2 1.16E-01 7.19E-01 9E-0 3.53E+02 3.53E+0 F

4.93E-03 1.15E-01 6.85E-01 1.83E+02 5.67E-03 1.16E-01 5.58E-01 2.79E+02 LL/E 6.57E-06 1.91E-04

-04 6.73E-0 6.73E-06 2.99 2.99E-04 9 7.33E-06 2.73E-04 7.13E-06 2.88E-04 LL/I CI 1.00E-02 5.06E-05 3.14E-01

.14E-01 1.5 1.54E-06 7.42E-03 2E-03 4.13E-05 A

3.70E-01 1.12E-06 4.97E-03 3.20E-05 9.30E-01 2.18E-04 6.36E-03 3.48E-05 3.08E-01 2.52E-06 TOTAL 4.91E+00 1.56E 1.56E+04 5.02E+00 5.02 5.02E+0 1.33E+04 4.92E+00 1.13E+04 4.75E+00 1.20E+04 R

D to NRC-15-0045 Page 19 Table 6 - Maximum Averted Cost Risk sk ER SAMA Analysis Results 2003 Met Data Sensitivity 2005 05 Met Da Sensitivity Data Sensiti 2007 Met Data Sensitivity Cost 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real 3% Discount 7% Real Discount 3% Discoun 7% Real 3% Discount Discount Rate Discount Rate Discount D R Rate Discount Rate Rate Sensitivity Rate Sensitivity tyy Rate Sensitivity Sensiti Sensitivit Rate Sensitivity Off-Site Exposure 105,676 147,667 108,060 150,998

,998 998 105,907 105,9 147,990 147 102,248 142,876 Cost (WPHA) ($/yr)

Off-Site Economic 167,403 233,921 143,147 200,027 121,621 169,948 129,155 180,475 Cost (WEA) ($/yr)

On-Site Exposure Cost (WO) ($/yr)

On-Site Cleanup 572 17,450 930 29,293 572 17,450 7,450 930 29,293 572 57 17,450 1

T 930 29,293 572 17,450 930 29,293 Cost (WCD) ($/yr)

Replacement Power Cost (WRP)

($/yr) 15,247 14,278 15,2477 14,278 14,2 F

15,247 14,278 15,247 14,278 Maximum Averted Cost Risk (MACR) 306,348 426,090 26,090 284,476 284,4 395,527 39 260,798 362,440 264,672 367,854

($/yr)

External Event Multiplier 11 11 A 11 11 Modified MACR 3,369,832 4,686,991 4, 3,129,238 3

3,129 4,350,795 2,868,776 3,986,836 2,911,397 4,046,393 (MMACR) ($/yr)

Difference from ER Results 0.0% 0.0%

R

-7.1% -7.2% -14.9% -14.9% -13.6% -13.7%

D to NRC-15-0045 Page 20 Question 4 To support an NRC evaluation of potential replacement power costs from a temporary suspension of Fermi 3 power generation during site cleanup and decontamination activities following a severe accident at the Fermi 2 plant, confirm that 1655 MWe is an appropriate value for the Fermi 3 power output or recommend a more appropriate value.

Response

The Fermi 3 Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 8, Section 1.1.2.7,

.2.7, titled, t Rated R Core Thermal Power, states, The estimated net electrical power output, tput, which dependent on site whic is depe ambient conditions, the normal plant heat sink (NPHS) operation ation station electrical ion controls, aand statio loads, is between approximately 1485 MWe and 1585 MWe. recommen that tthe We. DTE recommends of potential replacement power costs for Fermi 3.

T conservative maximum net electrical power output valueue of 1585 MWe be used for fo an a evaluation AF R

D

Enclosure 2 to NRC-15-0045 T

Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 50 AFOperating CD Containing Severe Accident g License No. NPF-4 ining Input and Output Ou NPF-43 Files Requested by ccident Mitigation Alternatives Altern Alte Set 3 Question 3 R

D